Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

ons in practice; and that, from the age of Chrift and his Apoftles, fhe hath always profeffed the fame doctrines and practices which fhe does at this day. Can any thing be more fhameless than this? Did they always believe transubstantiation? Let their Pope Gelafius fpeak for then; who exprefsly denies, that in the facrament there is any fubftantial change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Chrift. Was this always an article of their faith, and neceffary to be believed by all Chriftians? Let Scotus, and feveral other of their fchoolmen and learned writers fpeak for them. Was purgatory always believed in the Roman church, as it is now defined in the council of Trent? Let feveral of their learned men fpeak. In what father, in what council before that of Trent, do they find Chrift to have inftituted juft feven facraments, neither more nor lefs? And for practices in their religion, they themselves will not fay, that in the ancient Chriftian church the fcriptures were with-held from the people, and locked up in an unknown tongue; and that the publick fervice of God, the prayers and leffons, were read, and the facraments celebrated in an unknown tongue; and that the facrament of the Lord's fupper was given to the people only in one kind. Where do they find in holy fcripture, or in the doctrine and practice of the ancient Chriftian church, any command or example for the worship of images, for the invocation of faints and angels, and the bleffed virgin; which do now make a great part of their religion? Nay, is not the doctrine of the feriptures, and of the ancient fathers, plainly against all thefe practices? With what face then can it be faid, that the church of Rome hath made a conftant visible profeffion of the fame faith and practice in all ages, from the time of Chrift and his Apostles? Or would the primitive church of Rome, if it should now vifit the earth again, own the prefent church of Rome to be the fame in all matters of faith and practice that it was when they left it?

And whereas they demand of us, to fhew a vifible church, from the time of Chrift and his Apostles, that hath always opposed the church of Rome in thofe points of doctrine and practice which we object to them; what can be more impertinent than this demand; when they

know,

know, that, in all these points, we charge them with innovations in matters of faith and practice; and fay, that those things came in by degrees, feveral ages after the Apostles time, fome fooner, fome later; as we are able to make good, and have done it? And would they have us fhew them a visible church that opposed these errors and corruptions in their church before ever they appeared? This we do not pretend to fhew. And fuppofing they had not been at all oppofed when they appeared, nor a long time after, nor till the reformation; yet if they be errors and corruptions of the Chriftian doctrine, and contrary to the holy fcriptures, and to the faith and practice of the primitive church, there is no prescription against truth. It is never too late for any church to reject thofe errors and corruptions, and to reform itself from them.

The bottom of all this matter is, they would have us to fhew them a fociety of Chriftians that in all ages hath preserved itself free from all fuch errors and corruptions as we charge them withal, or elfe we deny the perpetual vifibility of the catholick church. No fuch matter. We fay, the church of Chrift hath always been vifible in every age fince Chrift's time; and that the feveral focieties of Chriftians, profeffing the Chriftian doctrine, and laws of Chrift, have made up the catholick church; fome parts whereof have, in feveral ages, fallen into great errors and corruptions; and no part of the catholick into more and greater than the church of Rome; fo that it requires the utmost of our charity, to think that they are a true, though a very unfound and corrupt part of the catholick church of Chrift.

We acknowledge likewife, that we were once involved in the like degeneracy; but, by the mercy of God, and pious care and prudence of thofe that were in authority, are happily refcued out of it. And though we were not out of the catholick church before; yet, fince our reformation from the errors and corruptions of the church of Rome, we are in it upon better terms, and are a much founder part of it; and I hope, by the mercy and goodne fs of God, we fhall for ever continue fo.

So that to the perpetual vifibility of Chrift's church, it is not neceffary, that the whole Chriftian church, nor

indeed that any part of it, should be free from all errors and corruptions. Even the churches planted by the Apostles in the primitive times were not fo. St. Paul reproves feveral doctrines and practices in the church of Corinth, and of Coloffe, and of Galatia; and the Spirit of God, feveral things in the feven churches of Asia : and yet all these were true parts and members of the catholick church of Chrift, notwithstanding thefe faults and errors; because they all agreed in the main and effential doctrines of Christianity. And when more and greater corruptions grew upon the church, or any part of it, the greater reafon and need there was of a reformation. And as every particular perfon hath a right to reform any thing that he finds amifs in himself, fo far as concerns himself; fo much more every national church hath a power within itself, to reform itself from all errors and corruptions, and, by the fanction of the catholick authority, to confirm that reformation; which is our cafe here in England. And whatever part of the church, how great and eminent foever, excludes from her communion fuch a national church, for reforming herfelf from plain errors and corruptions, clearly condemned by the word of God, and by the doctrine and practice of the primitive Chriftian church, is undoubtedly guilty of fchifm. And this is the truth of the cafe between us and the church of Rome. And no blind talk about a perpetual vifible church can render us guilty of fchifm, for making a real reformation; or acquit them of it, for cafting us out of their communion for that caufe.

7. and lastly, to mention no more, They pretend, that we delude the people, by laying too much firefs upon the fcripture, and making it the only rule of faith and manners; whereas fcripture and tradition together make up the entire rule of faith; and not feripture interpreted by every man's private fancy, but by tradition carefully preferved in the church: To that it ought to be no wonder, if feveral of their doctrines and practices cannot be fo clearly made out by fcripture, or perhaps feem contrary to it, as it may be expounded by a private fpirit; but not as interpreted by the tradition of the church, which can only give the true fenfe of fcripture: and therefore they are to understand, that feveral of

thofe

thofe doctrines and practices which we object against, are most clearly proved by the tradition of their church, which is of equal authority with fcripture.

In this objection of theirs, which they defign for the cover of all their errors and corruptions, there are feveral things diftinctly to be confidered; which I fhall do as briefly as I can.

1. Whereas it is fuggefted, that we delude the people, by laying too much ftrefs upon the fcriptures, (which certainly we cannot well do, if it be the word of God), it ought to be confidered, whether they do not delude and abuse them infinitely more, in keeping the fcriptures from them, and not fuffering them to fee that which they cannot deny to be at least a confiderable part of the rule of Chriftian doctrine and practice. Doth it not, by this dealing of theirs, appear very fufpicious, that they are extremely afraid, that the people fhould examine their doctrine and practice by this rule? For what other reason can they have to conceal it from them?

2. Whereas they affirm, that fcripture alone is not the rule of Chriftian faith and practice, but that fcripture and oral tradition preferved in the church, and delivered down from hand to hand, make up the entire rule; I would fain know, whence they learned this new doctrine of the rule of faith. I know, that the council of Trent declares it for the rule they intend to proceed upon, and make use of, for the confirmation and proof of their following determinations and decrees. But did any of the ancient councils of the Christian church lay down this rule, and proceed upon it? Did not Conftantine the Emperor, at the opening of the first general council, lay the Bible 'before them, as the only rule, according to which they were to proceed; and this with the approbation of all thofe holy fathers that were affembled in that council? And did not following councils proceed upon the same rule? Do any of the ancient fathers ever mention any rule of Chriftian faith and practice, befides the holy fcriptures, and the ancient creed; which, becaufe it is an abridgment of the neceffary articles of Chriftian faith contained in the holy fcriptures, is by them frequently called the rule of faith? Do not the fame fathers frequently and exprefsly fay, that the fcriptures are a per

fect

fect rule; and that all things are plainly contained in them which concern faith and life; and that whatever cannot be proved by teftimony of scripture, is to be rejected? All this I am fure I can make good by innumerable express teftimonies of the ancient fathers, which are well known to thofe that are verfed in them. By what authority then hath the council of Trent fet up this new rule, unknown to the Christian church for one thousand five hundred years? And who gave them this authority? The plain truth is, the neceffity of it for the defence of the errors and corruptions which they had embraced, and were refolved not to part with, forced them to lengthen out the rule; the old rule of the holy fcriptures being too fhort for their purpose.

C. Whereas they pretend, that holy fcripture, as expounded by a private fpirit, may not feem fo favourable to fome of their doctrines and practices; yet, as interpreted by tradition, which can only give the true fenfe of fcripture, it agrees very well with them: I fuppofe they mean, that whereas a private fpirit would be apt to understand some texts of fcripture, as if people were to fearch and read the fcripture; tradition interprets those texts in a quite other fenfe, that people are not to be permitted to read the holy fcriptures. A private fpirit would be apt to understand St. Paul's difcourfe, in the 14th of the ift to the Corinthians, to be against celebrating prayer and the service of God in an unknown tongue, as being contrary to edification, and indeed to common fenfe; for he fays, If one should come, and find them fpeaking and praying in an unknown tongue, will they not fay, Ye are mad? But now tradition, which only knows how to give the true fenfe, can reconcile this difcourfe of St. Paul very easily with the practice of the church of Rome in this matter and fo likewife the epiftle of St. Paul to the Coloffians, with the worship of angels; and the epiftle to the Hebrews, with offering the propitiatory facrifice of Chrift in the mafs a thousand times every day. And to give but one inftance more: Whereas a man, by his private fpirit, would be very apt to understand the fecond commandment to forbid all worship of images; tradition discovers the meaning of this commandment to be, that due veneration is to be given to them. So that,

at

« ZurückWeiter »